Did you go to a grammar school?

[Don Turner]

There is talk of grammar schools being reinstated. Did you go to a grammar school in the 1950s or 1960s? What were your impressions of them? Was the method of selection fair?

Yes. Nether Edge GS for boys. Selection by 11+

A small GS. Good school. Ideal for immature boys like me.

Don Turner

[echo beach]

There is talk of grammar schools being reinstated. Did you go to a grammar school in the 1950s or 1960s? What were your impressions of them? Was the method of selection fair?

 

I took the 11+ exam in 1956 and failed so I can't provide a direct impression of what they were like. I do know that most of the students who did gain entry, extol their virtues and I've no doubt they were excellent for them.

 

Looking back the problem was that there were a number of variables connected to the selection process which impeded its fairness.

 

Primarily, there was no predetermined pass/fail mark. The success rate depended on where you lived in the UK and the number of grammar/technical school places available in that region. Hence, in Outer London,the South West and Wales 37-42% of pupils passed whilst in the North and parts of the Midlands the rate was much lower. Sheffield had a pass rate of 30%.

 

Secondly, because children were only allowed to start school in the term of their 5th birthday those born in the Christmas term had had the benefit of several more months education when sitting the 11+ test as compared to those born later in the academic year. (athy previously referred to this on 10th March.)

 

Thirdly, family background played a major role and, of course, it still does today. The tests were biased towards children from middle class backgrounds where, more often than not, education was valued and support given to their children with their studies.

 

Finally, primary schools were organized on a streamed basis. So, 4JA referred to by jstarr, would be the A class of of the 4th year in the juniors at Abbey Lane.

In large schools there would have been several other classes in the same year. Excellent teaching obviously played a role but, particularly in their final year, the A class would be taught to the test and would have had the benefit of immense practice whereas other classes had only a cursory glance of what was to come. What was the point of coaching all pupils to pass the 11+ when places weren't available for them at grammar/technical school anyway?

 

So, in my day in Sheffield 70% of children ended up in Secondary Modern schools. The education was basic; we were 'ruled by the rod', as was the norm and we left school without the opportunity to take any nationally recognized qualifications.

 

Grammar and technical high schools provided a fast track to higher qualifications and professional careers: with secondary modern schools it was more a long and winding road or a dead end.

 

Personally I enjoyed my time in school. I subsequently went on to better things, gaining a degree and a post graduate diploma and forging a career in teaching and I know peers who have becomes doctors, pilots and successful business people. So failure at 11 was not necessarily the end of the road.

 

I have always thought it was unacceptable to classify children at such a young and formative age as a success or a failure and I wouldn't want us to go back to that.

 

The future lies in science, engineering and technology and as such, in my opinion, the Government would be wiser investing in specialist schools in those areas.

 

echo.

[trastrick]

I took the 11+ exam in 1956 and failed so I can't provide a direct impression of what they were like. I do know that most of the students who did gain entry, extol their virtues and I've no doubt they were excellent for them.

 

Looking back the problem was that there were a number of variables connected to the selection process which impeded its fairness.

 

Primarily, there was no predetermined pass/fail mark. The success rate depended on where you lived in the UK and the number of grammar/technical school places available in that region. Hence, in Outer London,the South West and Wales 37-42% of pupils passed whilst in the North and parts of the Midlands the rate was much lower. Sheffield had a pass rate of 30%.

 

Secondly, because children were only allowed to start school in the term of their 5th birthday those born in the Christmas term had had the benefit of several more months education when sitting the 11+ test as compared to those born later in the academic year. (athy previously referred to this on 10th March.)

 

Thirdly, family background played a major role and, of course, it still does today. The tests were biased towards children from middle class backgrounds where, more often than not, education was valued and support given to their children with their studies.

 

Finally, primary schools were organized on a streamed basis. So, 4JA referred to by jstarr, would be the A class of of the 4th year in the juniors at Abbey Lane.

In large schools there would have been several other classes in the same year. Excellent teaching obviously played a role but, particularly in their final year, the A class would be taught to the test and would have had the benefit of immense practice whereas other classes had only a cursory glance of what was to come. What was the point of coaching all pupils to pass the 11+ when places weren't available for them at grammar/technical school anyway?

 

So, in my day in Sheffield 70% of children ended up in Secondary Modern schools. The education was basic; we were 'ruled by the rod', as was the norm and we left school without the opportunity to take any nationally recognized qualifications.

 

Grammar and technical high schools provided a fast track to higher qualifications and professional careers: with secondary modern schools it was more a long and winding road or a dead end.

 

Personally I enjoyed my time in school. I subsequently went on to better things, gaining a degree and a post graduate diploma and forging a career in teaching and I know peers who have becomes doctors, pilots and successful business people. So failure at 11 was not necessarily the end of the road.

 

I have always thought it was unacceptable to classify children at such a young and formative age as a success or a failure and I wouldn't want us to go back to that.

 

The future lies in science, engineering and technology and as such, in my opinion, the Government would be wiser investing in specialist schools in those areas.

 

echo.

 

An excellent overview! This should be archived for future reference in the education community. It answers many questions about the education system in those post war years!

 

Like you, I failed the 11+. From J3B (single welfare mom, free dinners, free boots, etc) but went on to do well in school.

 

It wasn't necessarily fatal, the alternative was often a useful trade, a lucrative stall in the market.

 

Occasionally some of us went on to wider educational pursuits. I actually, in my semi-retirement, taught in a grammar school for a year (contract), while serving 3 years as Science Link Governor in another.

 

I still get about 8 pounds a month in pension, but my prize possession is a hand signed letter from Charles Clarke, Secretary of State, thanking me for a "lifetime of service to the education community" on my "retirement!

 

Politicians!

Edited March 20, 2017 by trastrick

[athy]

Another plaudit for Echo Beach's considered and informative post, most of which I agree with.

[Thither]

I have just discovered that my slippery as an eel partner of 23 years is profoundly dyslectic. I have never ever seen anything written by him except his signature. He can possibly read just a smidge by recognising the shapes of key words. He has mastered every avoidance tactic, and this is particularly astonishing because I went to a grammar school and have taught on the adult literacy scheme. He went to Woodhouse Grammar.  Whenever I had a suspicion I told myself that I was imagining things as this man had obviously passed the 11+.   How on earth did he get into and through grammar school?  He would have entered Woodhouse Grammer around 1952.  His parents were comfortably off and he went to a fee paying junior school.  Surely the only answer is that his parents paid a fee to get him into the grammar.  Needless to say he is the ultimate great charmer, and has had a successful career that involves no reading or writing.  But my point is that there were clearly ways of manipulating grammar school entrance at least up to the early 1950s.